Printable View
In a town like Jackson, if you bought a house in the 80s that is now worth millions, but you only have a modest or fixed income, how do you afford property taxes? I see Wyoming has a 50% refund for those meeting financial means criteria but that would still exclude so many.
I remember interviewing Virginia Huidekooper and I think she put her ranch into a tax easement or green belt/conservation designation in exchange for lower tax burden.
Reverse mortgage or HELOC? If the property has gone up so much there should be significant equity, so it should be an option?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
One of the few good things the anti-tax movement in California brought us is Prop 13--your property taxes can only go up 2% per year until the property is sold.
That's how my wife's parents have afforded to live in their house in Montclair, New Jersey, for 40 years. When values started skyrocketing because all the investment bankers wanted to live there within easy reach of NYC, they just kept refinancing and/or borrowing against the value to pay the outrageous property taxes. I think their taxes are like $30,000 a year or some crazy amount that they could not afford on the fixed incomes of a retired community college math professor and mail-delivery person. They have lived on their block far longer than anybody else. But bottom line is when they die, there is little or no value for the kids to inherit as far as the house goes. My understanding is they have sucked all the equity out of it in order to stay there. Which could be considered a fair trade, when you think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Counterpoint: Prop 13 sucks balls.Quote:
Originally Posted by old goat
Annual tax bill where I live for past few years:
2024 - 22,000
2023 - 20k
2022 - 16k
2021 - 10k
2020 - 6900
2019 - 7200
2018 - 3300
2017 - 4100
2016 - 4000
2015 - 3700
2014 - 3300
2013 - 2750
How ya like them apples?
1800/mos taxes…almost a second mortgage price for the average home before interest rates skyrocketedQuote:
Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained
I know there are economic levels to it all, but someone who moved to Texas 10-15 years ago and bought a house for 300,000 but now the property taxes are on a 1 million plus basis might disagree. Plenty are getting priced out of their homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
There are many different policy options that can address that without all the major downsides that came with Prop 13.Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoeJ
The only bad thing about it is that it applied to businesses and not just personal homes/property. That should have never happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
That’s one bad thing, but not the only one.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
Like you could have two basically identical older couples, but one had the fortune to stay in one house their whole adult lives whereas the other had to move due to jobs/family/health etc. They could end up living next door to one another in similar houses but pay vastly different property tax bills.
It’s a bad, and very unfair system.
Property taxes........
When we bought our house we paid $5000/year. We renovated the house and it bumped us to $7500/year. Then it kept climbing each and every year. When we sold our house we were paying $15000/year.
The new owner is now paying $68,000/year.
Getting priced out of your home sucks. And worse yet are the people that can afford it are the exact people you moved there to get away from in the first place.
Report on Prop 13 and what alternatives could be, for anyone wanting to get into the weeds:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uplo...its-full_0.pdf
The report was prepared by Terri Sexton, an economics professor at California State University, Sacramento, and associate director of the University of California, Davis, Center for State and Local Taxation, and by Mark Haveman, executive director of the Minnesota Taxpayers Association. They recommend four alternatives to Proposition 13:
• "Circuit breaker programs" that cut taxes when they rise above a certain percentage of income.
• "Truth in taxation" measures that require public notice or even elections before tax revenues may exceed the prior year's total.
• "Deferral options" that permit qualifying owners to delay tax payments until their home is sold or estate is settled.
• "Partial exemptions" for owner-occupied housing units, and "classified tax rates" that permit rates to rise for commercial and industrial properties.
Sure, but the second old couple who pays a much higher price to move into that neighborhood knows what their property tax will be there and buys the place knowing they can afford it.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Without prop 13 the long time home owners on the other hand probably get forced out of a home they paid off years ago, or if they follow yeahman's example they deplete any nest egg they've saved up. This would affect millions of people, not just one theoretical "old couple"
The middle and lower classes already get shit on enough already. Ending a protection like prop 13 would systematically force millions of people out of their homes. But yet you think it is unfair that someone buys a home next door knowing they can afford the taxes? Get real
You'd probably find as much to complain about in a system like this given how many high net worth people are able to manipulate their income taxes to owe pretty much nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
The entire tax system needs restructuring.
why? it's a fairly simple, straightforward document...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/w...complexity.jpg
There’s nothing unfair about that. They know what they are purchasing and not subject to later appraisals like other states. My street has tax rates ranging from one a couple thousand to 30k + per year. The newbies can afford it. The olds would have to move if they were reappraised at those rates. All the properties are fairly similarQuote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Edit. Evdog beat me to it and better. Anyone that dealt w Ca taxes appraisals in the 70s would kick Jong in the nuts. That bs is just rich people trying to squeeze even more out of the system they abuse
Yeah, so realistically if that second old couple is identical to the first, they’re priced out and can’t move to the nice house in the nice neighborhood. Fair!Quote:
Originally Posted by evdog
And Prop 13 has highly regressive effects in taxation. It’s not the middle and lower classes that are helped by it.
https://www.taxfairnessproject.org/reform
I don’t know where you live but it’s def not CA. Get the Fuk out w that bs. In no reality is prop 13 regressive. Appreciation is not income. Fukin stupid
I live in Truckee.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcski
Appreciation is not income, which the proposals address.
How long have you lived there?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Since 2016. Lived in CA since 2010. My wife lived here her whole life except for college.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
This explains your opinion, you’ve lived in your home 8 years and you’re upset your neighbors pay that have lived there longer pay lower property tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Why shouldn’t people be able to buy a home and live out their life without being forced out of their home.
My neighbor in CA bought his home in 1960 and paid far less in property tax than I did buying in 2001. I had no ill will, seemed fair to me.
Elaborate why you think it’s not fair. In your world they’d be taxed out of the neighborhood and then they’d be crushed by the capital gains.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Nope. Live in a relatively new neighborhood, so no big effects from Prop 13 here yet. I actually just think Prop 13 sucks, for the reasons I’ve stated, and ‘forced out’ can be avoided in many different ways, some of which have been stated as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
Like, is it good that in the state with the worst housing affordability, we have a policy that de-incentivizes building new housing:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/app/uplo...g_crisis_0.pdf
Holy fucking shit. What exactly is the town of Jackson doing with that money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained
This sounds like a plea from developers, realtors and investors to do away with a tax incentive so that they can make more money.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Break it down for us dummies, what is the process that allows you to live in your home that you’ve lived in for decades and want to die in without being forced to sell because you can’t afford the taxes on a fair market value assessment?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Also, how has the appraised value changed?Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Alternatively: building more houses where people want to live is good, it would make housing more affordable, and it would reduce homelessness.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
So we just keep growing without limits? Sounds like cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
So what are you proposing instead? Chemical castration?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
California’s population density is about half that of Italy’s.
Are we trying to catch up? Should the whole planet have the same density? Should we encourage accelerating growth?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
You live in Truckee and not LA or the Bay Area, why? Do you want more people living in the Tahoe Basin and Truckee Valley?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Is that actually off the table?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Congratulations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Djongo Unchained
I think there should be much less restrictive zoning so that cities can be more dense and walkable with efficient public transport so that people who want to live in a city can.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
That’s a lot of people.
I also think ski towns should allow some more density so employees of the businesses in town can afford to live near by.
If you want more open spaces, then you need to allow housing density. Not forced housing density, but allowed.
So get rid of people’s homes for more multiple dwelling units? I’m all for density in urban areas but not at the expense of current home owners.
We have lots of new high density housing here but it’s not displacing current homeowners, it’s on land that was once agricultural and commercial property within current urban and suburban areas. It has nothing to do with our lack of a proposition 13 type initiative.
These things will happen in the long run, it might take longer than you like but it will happen.
You’ve yet to elaborate how working class retired people can stay in their homes without being forced out due to increased property tax if prop 13 were eliminated. They want to continue living there why shouldn’t they be able to? Do you live in high density housing in Truckee?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’m not saying get rid of peoples homes. But if people are willing to sell in a downtown core where it would make sense to have a high rise, then a developer should be allowed to try and make that happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
The issue right now is that much of it won’t happen over the long term, because zoning legally precludes it.
Like, look at Paulo Alto and tell me that it wouldn’t be much, much denser if it were allowed. And allowing that density reduces sprawl and all the shit that comes with it.
Okay, I’m in agreement with most of the that but what does that have to do with Prop 13?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Well, we’ve gotten away from Prop 13 specifically, but my point about Prop 13 is that it acts to reduce housing supply (on top of all the other impediments to housing supply) when CA needs more.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
How does it reduce housing supply if people stay in their homes? If they sold their home they’d need new housing. Is it because you think they should sell so their homes can be razed and high density housing could be built?Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
The article you linked said Prop 13 stifled development and reduced housing supply, that’s how we got here in this conversation.
The answer isn’t eliminating Prop 13, it’s actively trying to change zoning to allow high density housing.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums